on international tribunals and therefore concludes that the decision of the Kenyan Court of Appeal is binding on the African Commission except there is evidence of systematic human rights violation, which the Complainants have failed to prove in this case.3 According to the Respondent State, it is only in situations where there is evidence of systematic violations by the state that international tribunals such as the African Commission may have jurisdiction to hear disputes arising from such violations. The Respondent State thus urges the African Commission to declare the Communication inadmissible. Complainants’ Supplementary Submissions on Admissibility 25. In response to the Respondent State’s Submissions, the Complainants maintain that the requirements of Article 56 have been fully complied with and that the arguments of the Respondent State regarding the exhaustion of local remedies rule are untenable. 26. Regarding the Respondent State’s argument that the Complainants could have filed an Application for Review to the Kenyan Court of Appeal, they submit, citing jurisprudence of the African Commission, that the generally accepted meaning of local remedies, which must be exhausted prior to any Communication/Complaint procedure before the African Commission, are the ordinary remedies of common law that exist in jurisdictions and normally accessible to people seeking justice.4 Respondents State cites the case of Serbians Loans, PCIJ, Ser. A. nos 20-1, Fisheries Case, ICJ Reports (1951) to support its position. 4 Communication 242/01 Interights, Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa, and Association Mauritanienne des Droits de l’Homme/Islamic Republic of Mauritania 17th Annual Activity Report at para 27. 3 6